I think authoritative document links and specifics would help your arguments. This is a screenshot of Google's snippet of a wikipedia article about the philosophical idea of "right of revolution", which is not specific to the United States. It seems Google's snippet is not actually answering the question they're showing. Their machine learning apparently failed this time.
Being spelled out as a right in our documents is different from being illegal, as contradictory as that sounds. The whole point of a "right of revolution" concept is to reinvent the law because the law was bad, so you would expect that people might violate the law in doing the reinventing, although not necessarily. They'd still be breaking the law, it just might be justified if the majority of citizens agree with them and end up over throwing the government.
Here's a snippet from the Declaration of Independence which I'm guessing you wanted to reference:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."
This is not a law of course, it's a visionary statement from the founding fathers in their declaration to England. I think we all agree it's critical for the people to be empowered to alter, abolish, or re-institute a failing government, and there are many ways it can be done if needed, and definitely not all of them are violent.
Caption this Meme
